1. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53276 by Sancus on June 30, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Interesting statement about the public in the final sentence.

Elsewhere, Christopher Hitchens was on Al Jazeera, of all places!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-3ZB_-dMaQ&NR=1

2. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51732 by Sancus on June 24, 2007 at 11:44 am

Great video!

Although, right after dude says how horrible it would be if we got rid of public education, he complains about how federally funded education programs have so many restrictions. Well, duh. People, this is what you get when your education system is controlled by democracy.

3. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50555 by Sancus on June 18, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Hedges opens with the claim that Christianity was responsible for the rise of individualism in the West and giving us our concept of self. This claim is so outrageous that I find it weird and disturbing people don't automatically reject it. Then, I suppose it is somewhat fortunate the Enlightenment was so effective that people cannot imagine how different things were before it.

I wonder if Hedges ever considered that the rise of individualism might be tied to the rise of literacy rates. Perhaps, when people learn how to read and write, they don't have to rely on community leaders for all their information? Maybe!

4. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything

Comment #48704 by Sancus on June 8, 2007 at 6:46 pm

From Disumbrationist,

Isn't that the exact same - "Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad" - argument that the apologists always use against atheism? I find it hard to believe that these men's atrocities were even supported by, much less driven by, their belief in Buddhist principles.

Consider that Buddhism is essentially the destruction of the individual. A lack of individuality is completely commensurate with dictatorship and all forms of social degradation. Buddhism seems benign to the Western ear because our egos are so well developed, which is a good thing. Without the individual, there is no freedom.

Siddhartha adamantly claimed that the individual does not own himself or herself. No other claim is more sinister. We're fortunate that we're strong enough not be infected by Buddhism much, although it's disturbing to see Sam Harris and Susan Blackmoore approach it so closely. Buddhism is one of the sickest philosophies ever to grace this planet.

Although, admittedly I'm referring to it as a philosophy and not as a religion. Philosophy begins where religion ends. Still, philosophers can not do worse than reject self-ownership.

5. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #48316 by Sancus on June 7, 2007 at 11:51 am

Yet the worst form of government is just grand in the afterlife.

6. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47873 by Sancus on June 5, 2007 at 9:34 pm

The crowd gasped loudly when moderator Soledad O'Brien asked Edwards to name the biggest sin he ever committed, and he won their applause when he said he would have a hard time naming one thing.

I suddenly have enormous respect for Soledad O'Brien. Edwards is sickly proud of his sinning, like most religious people, and it's only natural to think he'd be eager to reveal his greatest sin -- which might be, incidentally, that he's a twisted ignoramus who's proud of his sinning.

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47504 by Sancus on June 4, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Thank you for posting this video.

I think the interview was most valuable during the conversation about "the one child" that survived a train wreck. McGrath describes God as "trying" to do something good for a dangerous world. Deity is an externalization of incompetence.

It reminds me of how children learn the word "please." At first they just go for the things they want, lacking the communicative ability to ask for things. Then they learn to use basic gestures, like crying, when they want something. If they are denied it or otherwise don't receive it, they keep crying until they do. Crying becomes an extension of just going for they want. Eventually they learn the word "no" and realize that crying will not work, and incidentally begin using the word "no" themselves. So they figure out this language thing can be rather useful and realize this "please" word that everyone seems to be muttering around them. They repeat it and get what they want. Success! It becomes a foundation for their ethical model BEFORE religious indoctrination.

So, when they get to religion, and are taught to pray to an invisible man in the sky, they respond by asking for things. Once they realize that their requests are not being granted, they continue on in their learned ethical behavior. They say please, pretty please, over and over and over and over again. Their religious leaders encourage it. "Keep praying," they say. Since it is already learned behavior, it is fairly easy to reinforce. The repetition of the request that is denied is natural, like crying. It's an extension of "just going for what they want" although a severely compromised one.

Prayer is a natural outgrowth of a system of childrearing when 1) parents control resources that their children need, 2) limit access to those resources with linguistic cues and 3) periodically deny their children's requests.

Children have to find a way to deal with these denials, which may lead to the beginning of empathy. They may see that their parents are struggling emotionally and may just try to ask more nicely next time.

That is, if they do not overcome their own incompetence and instead fine independent ways to achieve their goals.

8. Man to die over insult

Comment #47265 by Sancus on June 3, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Thank you, Logicel. Emails sent!

9. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30961 by Sancus on April 10, 2007 at 1:04 pm

"God is Love" may be the worst thing anyone can possibly say. Even if it ignores the Bible and whatever anyone else says about God, the notion that Love created the universe is staggeringly hurtful. A volcano that kills 36,500 people 1,000 km away through suffocation on its burning ashes -- say that is love, and you might as well say that burning 36,500 citizens of a small country in ovens is love. Oh, the Hitler comparison is overused, but is this not the most appropriate situation for it? "God is Love" is a statement of purely condensed evil; a declaration that a ruler created an oven the size of a mountain and used it to slaughter people for everyone's own good.

"God is Love" is not a trivial or obfuscating rewording of the hypothesis. It is psychotic.

10. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30950 by Sancus on April 10, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Darn, I leave the site for a while because of the anti-youth sentiment and return to find EntropyGuardian spouting offensive stereotypes.

Little on substance indeed. Look in the mirror, jerk.

11. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24804 by Sancus on March 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Are you people serious? Science journalists aren't exactly masters of communicating science, but I'd think a group of discerning people would recognize the obvious.

Hood and Bloom liken this early reasoning to adult notions of 'essences' where we think invisible properties inhabit objects that make them unique as if these properties were physically real.

"As if?" Of course they're physically real. What else could they be? Nevermind that rhetorical question of ontology, which may be interpreted as trivial by an already sound mind. Look, then, at the observation that these supposedly identical copies are in fact different.

What a testament to a learned insensitiveness, to your own blindness, that you would think a child's superior capacity to recognize physical objects is indicative of hallucination. Invisible to you, yes, but what of you, master of sensation? Blind fool.

This website has an unscientific bias of resentment toward children. Like Dawkins' prejudice, your first reactions are to think that minds are inferior because they are young. Shame on you, especially when there's evidence to the contrary. A greater shame, that this evidence is presented in the above article, and an utter travesty when you claim to support the civil rights of children. The above comments are not all equally guilty, and neither Richard Dawkins nor his webmaster has uttered a word regarding this article. Regardless, the implication, that evidence of superior sensory capacity can be presented as any vindication that religion is childish, is only evidence of the presenter's stupidity.

Even if his claims were not held to a higher standard, for science is his profession, Richard Dawkins' prejudices towards youth while claiming to be a supporter of their rights is intolerable. The evidence that children evolved to be superior learners of the natural world will penetrate Dawkins' ego eventually, but it sure is taking a bloody long time.

12. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24460 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm

It seems like most religious people, including this author, do not recognize the distinction between atheism and anti-theism. One is an epistemological position and the other is a value position. It's possible to have both. Although I'm an atheist, and lack a belief in any god, I would nonetheless repel from the notion of serving one anyways, even if one did exist.

My idea of hell is not being punished by an alpha-male or being rejected by one, it's being enslaved by one. Put me in a pleasant environment, with bunnies frolicking in a virgin wilderness, while losing discretionary power over my own spirit, and a fire pit looks inviting.

Notice, I did not say losing "pride." I lost that a long time ago, thank you. Give away all your possessions and then sleep (or try to sleep) in a Protestant homeless shelter for just one night, and you'll know what I mean.

So perhaps the author is talking about people like me; those of us who actually take religion seriously and, in so doing, become "genuine atheists." Under this phraseology, I don't even think Dawkins is a "genuine atheist," because he believes there is a chance that God exists and therefore a chance to believe. In other words, Dawkins believes in a contingent faith. However small.

13. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24457 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God."

What?

Oh, yes, and that whole business about moral order being a person who listens to prayers, extends mercy, and develops a relationship with you -- well that's just all minutiae, isn't it.

14. Long live satire

Comment #24413 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Freedom to offend and much more; it is the freedom to be offended. What hell would society be to not have the freedom to recoil at anything.

TV Ontario hosted a lecture by Christopher Hitchens a couple months ago. He heads straight into the issue through Islam and holocaust denial. No doubt some of you will be aghast and offended!

http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/bi/audio/BIChristopherHitchens010707.mp3

Here's the details page on TVO.

http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa/wo/XCPab1elMqZtATIbTUHVG0/2.0.0.83.45.26.25.13.9.1

15. The joy of changing your mind

Comment #23185 by Sancus on February 26, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Please note the ending paragraph of that WaPo article as well.

Above all, Montessori was practical. She looked for what worked rather than what fit a theory. "If schooling were evidence-based," Lillard wrote, "I think all schools would look a lot more like Montessori schools."

16. The joy of changing your mind

Comment #23184 by Sancus on February 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm

alvorin, I agree that that is the central point of the article, and I hope the site I linked to above helps you with your questions.

Welles uses the notion of "schema" to explain the corruption of learning and relates their dependence on language. However, he does not say they are wholly memetic. This is important for atheists to grasp, in my opinion. Schemas can still exist outside of group interaction. It is when they are dependent on the language of a group that they have a higher probability of reinforcing themselves to extremes with their own maladaptive positive feedback. In other words, it is easier to change one's mind when one is not beholden to the group.

From this we see that it is a lack of self-examinaton, or self-awareness, that prevents one from changing one's mind. The implication is that the very concept of persuasion is extraneous. I find this consistent with the extraordinary difficulty of maintaining a religious/atheist dialogue.

It is often said that effective persuasion is about getting the other person to persuade herself. Or, all hypnosis is self-hypnosis. Or, the person is involved in his own brainwashing. I have even heard that effective teaching is getting the student to teach himself. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that effective parenting is getting the child to raise herself. If this seems radical or idealistic, compare it to the difficulty of the previous examples.

Perhaps atheists should not be attempting to win people over to the side of reason, or even trying to get unreasonable doctrines out of schools. Instead, independence from groups and self-examination should take its own course. People do not need to be taught by others how to be reasonable, they only need to teach themselves how to be reasonable. Unfortunately, this education methodology is outside the schemas of our current culture. Fortunately, it is growing, and now very close to mainstream.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100742_pf.html

Notice, I'm not saying "leave people alone." Far from that. Just accept their ability to change their own mind by not reinforcing their attachment to group schemata.

17. The joy of changing your mind

Comment #23175 by Sancus on February 26, 2007 at 3:49 pm

I read an interesting definition of "stupidity" yesterday; "the learned corruption of learning." It's from the introduction of The Story of Stupidity by Welles and the whole book is available online from (where else?) stupidity.com.

http://www.stupidity.com/story1final/tsos1.htm

18. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #22961 by Sancus on February 25, 2007 at 12:58 am

He had me really laughing (and cheering!) after this exchange with Carly Fiorina about Mormonism and religion in politics.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs

Craig Ferguson's jokes are out of context from the rest of the show, if you're wondering why he seems more awkward than usual.

19. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22960 by Sancus on February 25, 2007 at 12:34 am

Young primates being original and inventive?

Somehow Dawkins will ignore this in favor of his youth gullibility theory.

20. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22799 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 7:43 pm

What the hell's wrong with "patriotic fervor?"

Not to denigrate the rest of Riley's list, but let's please recognize that the USA is the first and probably only legitimate child of the Enlightenment.

Furthermore, I know you Europeans don't very much like where you come from (my ancestors didn't like it either), but that's no reason to expect that everyone should be the same. Actually yours is probably good reason for everyone to not like where you come from.

The United States is a great country even in the not-so-great times. That's what makes it and the Enlightenment really great.

21. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22797 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Look, ancient Greek did not have quotation marks. It's all he said/she said.

So, in Luke 19:26 when Jesus says "I say" -- that's him!

22. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22796 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Actually, I think he had just finished the parable in the penultimate verse. He did not say, "he said to them," like he did in previous verses for other statements by the king.

Those are Jesus' words; the lesson of the parable. He is not speaking for the character.

23. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22758 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 2:15 am

Those are great posts, Logicel. You're usually (always?) right on the money and I think you are especially insightful here.

My husband loves me because he shows me he does, via ways I can observe directly and connect the casuality back to him. Can't do that with Sullivan's imaginary Love fiend in the sky, and yet despite all his intelligence and education, and despite a precious dialogue with Harris that many of us would give our eye/teeth for, Sullivan insists on remaining immersed in his sea of merde.

You might have hit on the origin of Sullivan's faith/merde. He feels loved somehow, but does not see who or what is loving him. He concludes that it must be someone and makes an imaginary friend/merde as its origin.

Maybe the conventional wisdom that imaginary friends are created out of loneliness is wrong. Instead, maybe there is actually a feeling of not being lonely, even while one is alone. And people respond to this in different ways, some more intelligently than others.

I wonder, if you have this feeling too, Logicel, as part of the wonderfully positive feeling we were talking about earlier. Where does it come from? I'm not sure.

I say that it comes from me, that it comes from my self. But I am willing to think that I might be wrong, there is no self, etc.. It is a terrifying prospect because I so strongly identify with it. Not just because it "feels nice" but because this gives me predictive power over my dreams and imagination. This power is unparalleled, because I have never met a person who claimed to have the same mastery over their dreams as I do over mine. So, I take the route a scientist would; any alternative explanation should give me even greater predictive power. However, I'd settle just for the ability to share the experience with someone.

Anyway, didn't you say in another post that there was no such thing as love? In any case I'm very happy you found it. :)

24. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22756 by Sancus on February 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm

LookToWindward,

If you want to find out what your dreams mean about you,...

I don't think they really "mean" anything about me. They are phenomena and my interaction with them is what's meaningful. In my opinion, they have the same potential for meaning as rocks. Now, rocks can have very significant meaning -- look at Mt. Rushmore. However, I think it's clear that this meaning is not discovered, but applied. Or to extend the metaphor, it is carefully sculpted.

Or to give an example under conscious control, let's say that thinking of Jesus makes Andrew Sullivan peaceful and happy. That tells him nothing except that he can think of Jesus whenever he wants to feel peaceful and happy. It's certainly insufficient to legitimise a world view;

Agreed. That's why I think Sullivan's problem is a lack of self-awareness. He does not recognize that his thoughts and feelings about Jesus are actually his.

A rather high level of self-awareness is necessary to do solitary science. My problem with the dismissal of the possibility is not just that I think it's an incorrect dismissal, but that secularism does not offer any incentive to increase one's self-awareness. Instead, it rejects a very good one, and we are worse off for it.

I'm not beyond thinking such secularists, who may be more self-aware than the religious, also do not have the necessary level of self-awareness.

There is no such thing as subjective truth about reality, even some aspect of reality peculiar to an individual.

Agreed.

Truth demands consensus.

Disagreed. Your former statement does not imply this.

Objective truth is true even when there are no minds present. At least, that's the definition of objective truth that I learned in my philosophy courses. So, every human could die tomorrow and what is objectively true would still be objectively true. It does not need consensus.

So, even if the claim "truth demands consensus" were objectively true, it would still be true without consensus!

Sam wrote, "whatever is true about us, spiritually and ethically, must be discoverable now." He agrees that it is possible that one person can discover truth, but hastily adds that it will eventually be verified by others. My problem with this is that he places too much emphasis on the "eventually" and not enough on the notion that any individual can be a "solitary genius" (his words) or what I just call a solitary scientist.

25. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22730 by Sancus on February 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

The electoral college is not exactly a "representative sampling" of the population.

Oh! That doesn't even matter, because the primaries used to nominate candidate are even less representative. Ridiculously less. Ah! My head hurts just thinking about it.

The 2008 election is not about who can get elected by the country. It's about who can survive Iowa and win Ohio. We've become the United States of Ohiowa.

26. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22600 by Sancus on February 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Always great to hear the word "damn" on NPR.

27. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22533 by Sancus on February 19, 2007 at 2:07 pm

TIME just had an article called "The Religious Right's Era is Over."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1590782,00.html

The way they write about it doesn't sound very encouraging, though!

Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves.

Come out of the closet as believers. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at that one.

28. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22529 by Sancus on February 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I hope that children are included in the definition of "human" and "individual."

29. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22415 by Sancus on February 16, 2007 at 10:51 pm

... think of the ethic of nonviolence that Jesus advocated. Can you point to a single point in the Gospel where Jesus either allows violence to happen, advocates it, or anything like that?

Uh, yeah? Matthew 10:34-39 And if you think that's just one of Matt's quirks, JC really goes at it in Luke. Check out Luke 12:49-53, Luke 14:26 and Luke 22:36.

Jesus explicitly telling his disciples to bring those who do not want him to be their king and kill them in front of him? Luke 19:27. Alister must have missed that one. Here it is from ten different versions.

NASB: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

GWT: "Bring my enemies, who didn't want me to be their king. Kill them in front of me.'"

KJV: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

ASV: "But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

BBE: "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me.

DBY: "Moreover those mine enemies, who would not have me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.

WEY: "But as for those enemies of mine who were unwilling that I should become their king, bring them here, and cut them to pieces in my presence.'"

WBS: "But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

WEB: "But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.'"

YLT: "but those my enemies, who did not wish me to reign over them, bring hither and slay before me."

There's your god-on-a-stick.

30. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22081 by Sancus on February 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Dawkins' labeling of religion as "infantile" and "childish" is not only invalid, it's also inconsistent with the aim of protecting children from indoctrination. It is to say that it is somehow appropriate for children to be religious.

My goodness, Richard. If you are perplexed over why your conciousness-raising has not succeeded up to now, there's your answer.

31. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22072 by Sancus on February 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm

That discussion panel was run like a quiz show.

32. Interview with Chris Hedges

Comment #22042 by Sancus on February 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Sorry, most of the Founding Fathers were Protestant, others were Catholic, but the smartest ones were Deists.

Colbert is Catholic because he's a self-loathing postmodernist whack-job. He's funny when he's not just plain sad.

33. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #21918 by Sancus on February 11, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Here's another recent interview with her. It was a "60 second" interview with Metro.co.uk.

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/interviews/article.html?in_article_id=36021&in_page_id=11

Note the passage where she compares Islam to Nazism, Communism, and Catholicism!

34. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21400 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 3:25 am

Yeah, no where have I seen Dawkins even approach hyper-skepticism. If anything I think he relies far too much on the viral theory of religion and the surprisingly unfounded theory of memetics.

That's why I'm eager to hear a reply to my question. How are Richard's books not solely the result of typographical errors he made trying to copy nursery rhymes and other literature from his life? Errors and copying. That's memetics, right?

35. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21396 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 2:54 am

It is so unfortunate that this was not made by our side first. I feel really let down, now.

Okay, now that we've become all serious in this thread (tragically) how are Richard's books not actually the product of typographical errors that occurred during the reproduction of other works through history?

36. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21390 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 2:39 am

I just watched it again, with the understanding that it is meant as a parody of Dawkins, and... it's morbidly daft. I can't even wrap my head around the possibility that it's meant this way. How could the people who made this not have laughed at themselves?

In any case, I find the openly farcical association between genes and literature quite relevant.

37. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21386 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 2:13 am

Whoooooooooooaaa, wait a minute. This is NOT meant to make us laugh?

Figures, that I'd find The Onion's piece on "Intelligent Falling" macabre and not the least amusing, and then find this piece delightful.

38. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21372 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 12:39 am

Sam's latest reply is truly inspirational.

39. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21370 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 12:25 am

Incredible! Well done. =)

One thing, though. The books developed as a series of random typing errors? Sounds like vintage memetics to me. =P

40. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21129 by Sancus on February 7, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Red Foot Oakie, I thought you were sounding great until this.

Interesting that, as children, we are helpless in the face of the world and must coerce people into doing things for you, providing shelter and food and protection. You also have made-up friends. Odd that old people, who find themselves increasingly helpless in the face of the world, often return to the patterns of coercion that children use, and they cling to the believe in a big imaginary friend- often to aid in the coercion of the younger people on whom they rely on for food, shelter, and protection.

Please tell me I am misunderstanding. Children must coerce people into doing things for them? Since when?

Here, I must be 180 degrees wrong, for I thought parents had to coerce their children into doings things for them. How could the direction of coercion be any different? You, yourself, admitted that children are "helpless" so how they could possibly use force, intimidation, or authority on adults to achieve their ends?

Have adults become so weak, that I have not noticed it?

41. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21068 by Sancus on February 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm

How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Plenty. They're called "parents."

42. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #21061 by Sancus on February 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Excellent post, willerror.

--But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof. It belongs in a different category.—

And later:

--I would also argue that in terms of its own place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded.--

Well, which is it? If religious belief requires no scientific proof and only faith, what does it matter if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is "well grounded"?

It would be giving him too much credit to say he implied this, but he could use these two statements to argue that it indeed does not matter whether or not the claims are "well grounded." It would not be a very good argument. It would be quite a pathetic one. Nonetheless, there are people, apologists included, who would like religion protected from scientific inquiry.

Let us attack their ideas on their own grounds, then. If we are to break through their walls, and writers like Dawkins and Harris are quite admirably relenting, we must be prepared to secure the territory after we have invaded. Pretending that this area does not exist would make us both Bush-like and Rumsfeldian.

The parapets are not there to protect nothing. They are used to support someone's moral philosophy and potentially their entire perspective of the cosmos. This is no small garrison.

Even if Jesus existed and was the personal son of an existing personal God, and was crucified and resurrected, God would still be guilty of child sacrifice. Does resurrection make it okay? No. Unequivocally no. All it does it make the cruelty less than permanent, for which no one should be grateful. It also makes it stupid.

Really, what relief is there in guessing that one will not suffer for eternity? That suffering is only temporary, although indefinite? None. It is still a remarkable lack of knowledge about that suffering, which moral people ought to consider unacceptable.

43. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20876 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Jews are not strong, and I think that's a good thing.

Oh, wait, that sentence I just wrote was maniacally stupid.

44. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20875 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 9:48 pm

pholt, thank you for correcting my gaffe. I apologize.

45. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20867 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 9:00 pm

The article was so vulgar in its banality that the penultimate sentence, a slight rewording of something heard a million times, shocked me into a new abhorrence for him and all people who say they are Christian. In it he expressed a maximum level of general approval for child sacrifice.

For what, in the end, is our religion, but love for one another, and belief that once, long ago, upon a cross, a father committed the ultimate act of love, giving his son's life for all others?

Go to your hell, Meacham.

46. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20862 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 8:36 pm

I can't believe people still watch cable news. It's amazing. Watching this is like reflecting on stone age material in a museum.

Will someone ask the 20th century to please die already?

47. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20849 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 7:17 pm

From 601.

An original scientific theory, initial experiments, predictions, methodology and such can be individual. But peer review, replication of results, etc. "vote" on quality. If a super-majority (maybe 80%) agree with the process then the theory becomes accepted as part of the "Scientific Consensus."

First, consensus is majority opinion. It is not a proposition about facts. It is a plainly stupid term when used to support scientific truth and we ought to deprecate it. Replace it with something like "prevailing agreement." If we wish to extol majority opinion as an aim or virtue, then let us say we are looking for "harmony." Given that consensus itself can be misleading, the term, insofar as it refers to something with considerable truth value, is even more misleading -- at best. It is deliberately dishonest at worst.

This differs from "normal" democracy in that a theory say, IF A THEN B, only the "IF A THEN" part is really judged, the implied conclusion is not a matter of opinion.

Then you recognize that there really is no such thing as scientific consensus. More specifically, it cannot exist in a concluded state. It is a "hypothetical consensus," which is not the gold-standard of anything.

Science is not a democracy at all.

Moving back to your original points, replication of results can indeed be individual. It only requires that the individual do the experiment more than once. That leaves peer review and "vote" on quality, neither of which is relevant to an individual who's interested in keeping her knowledge private.

Of course, religious people really tend not to do that! They seem to have some messianic or evangelical urge, which probably has something to do with finding a social equilibrium. Maybe there are some atheist scientists with this same urge? For the moment, I will not explore that question.

Logicel was hitting on a more important point earlier. Science leaves subjectivity up to the subject. Let us disregard ontological separations of subjectivity here and treat subjectivity as that objective experience which is private to one person. Now the problem is with secularism, and not science or reason. Secularists, who may include scientists, treat subjective experience as illegitimate, if not a topic of humor. Instead, we should see it as something an individual owns, like the way an individual owns stomach muscles. It is perfectly okay for someone to experiment with new foods, so why not subjective experience? Science and reason do not need to give up any ground philosophically. So, why is it not sufficient to say that an individual's science can be enough for the individual?

Sam feels the need to go so far and say, "eventually, however, others will authenticate his/her results." Now, when we are talking about private experience, owned by an individual, potentially relevant no one else but the individual, Sam's statement is totally uncalled for. Individuals can authenticate their own experience. To say that they cannot walls them into stupidity. Moreover, authenticating one's experience is the impetus behind becoming what we would call an authentic individual.

Allow me to use a real example of an individual authenticating his own experience. My dream journal does not have to be read and authenticated by others in order for it to be genuine. It contains records of actual dreams, and these records are authenticated by me. Not only am I the only one who authenticates them, currently, I'm unaware of the physical ability anyone else has to authenticate them. Perhaps someday we will be able to read dreams directly from people's minds. I hope I'm alive to see that day and I eagerly look forward to it. Nonetheless, even in that future, no one is going to be reading my dreams without my consent. It is possible that no one will ever authenticate them, except one person; me. Indeed, this is a problem with historical studies and examining the records of dreams from deceased individuals, to say nothing of the dreams that history forgot.

Maybe I am being very optimistic, in thinking that we could convince religious people to not only find joy and power, but freedom and an everlasting well of inspiration in themselves through private and honest investigation. This appears to have been the motivation behind Soren Kierkegaard's work. He made religion a solitary experience, such that when it was shared, it became untruth. Socialized religion was in the same category as politics for Kierkegaard, and given that religion and politics are more closely intertwined than in recent historical memory, maybe this position could bear another look.

Kierkegaard called the crowd the "court of last resort." We do not have to agree with everything Kierkegaard says, but must we hasten to make the crowd the gold-standard? If we do not want to lose science to religious government, all the same, we must not want to lose it to notions of democracy.

48. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20828 by Sancus on February 6, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Also, while I was at school the Troubles began...

With girls?

I don't understand why this is capitalized, but I like how it appeals to my sense of whimsy.

49. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20673 by Sancus on February 5, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Interesting link, NormanDoering.

Sullivan has considerable failures of imagination, the twin primes being his inability to see his imagination as his own and as part of everything. It is a real cognitive lapse to say that there is something that is not included in everything, which further convinces me that religion is a self-awareness problem.

Moreover, it shows a lack of education to say that this something that supposedly is not included in everything is a "force." Sullivan does not even appear to have considered what force means. In our current understanding of the universe, there is nothing without force. Everywhere there is something, there is force. For example, everywhere there is matter, there is force, and there is no matter without force. The same is true for energy, space, and time. Admittedly, studying force is an eminently challenging subject, but Sullivan and others like him cannot be suffered for masquerading their ignorance of this venture as something else, much less something of vital worldly importance.

50. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #20654 by Sancus on February 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Greydon Square > ( {all hip-hop artists} - Greydon Square) * e.